What About Progressive Sanctification?

[Jesus is YHWH]

Relevance? I already addressed that passage - and not in the traditional ways that construe God as unjust, evil, a liar, and so on.

It sounds as if you are explaining away the obvious truth of Romans 5. But thanks ok believe whatever you wish that is fine with me.

 

[JAL]

It sounds as if you are explaining away the obvious truth of Romans 5. But thanks ok believe whatever you wish that is fine with me.

So the "obvious truth" of Romans 5 is that God is the most evil being on the planet, such that He visits the consequences of 1 man's sin upon 100 billion innocent offspring?

That's your "obvious truth"? Surely a more plausible "obvious truth" - a more cogent theory of Adam - would be this one:

"We were all physically present in Adam, so that we all sinned in his act" (Erickson, Christian Theology).

That is my position.

 

[JAL]

It sounds as if you are explaining away the obvious truth of Romans 5. But thanks ok believe whatever you wish that is fine with me.

Sounds to me like you are trying to explain away the obvious truth of Ezek 18 - that a child should not suffer for the sins of his parents.

In fact that truth is so self-evident that I don't need Ezek 18 to back it up. Anything less would make for an evil, unjust God.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

So the "obvious truth" of Romans 5 is that God is the most evil being on the planet, such that He visits the consequences of 1 man's sin upon 100 billion innocent offspring?

That's your "obvious truth"? Surely a more plausible "obvious truth" - a more cogent theory of Adam - would be this one:

"We were all physically present in Adam, so that we all sinned in his act" (Erickson, Christian Theology).

That is my position.

great that is your position but I will stick with Paul's in Romans 5

Romans 5
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

hope this helps !!!

 

[JAL]

great that is your position but I will stick with Paul's in Romans 5

Romans 5
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

hope this helps !!!

Relevance? Just as I was pretty sure that you don't understand the hypostatic union, I'm definitely sure that you don't understand my position. I just EXPLAINED those verses, providing the only viable explanation in church history - the only explanation known to date that doesn't misconstrue God as evil, unjust, and so on.

 

[JAL]

great that is your position but I will stick with Paul's in Romans 5

Romans 5
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

hope this helps !!!

(Sigh). Again, here's my position on Romans 5:

"We were all physically present in Adam, so that we all sinned in his act" (Erickson, Christian Theology).

Do you not understand how that position addresses the verses?

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

(Sigh). Again, here's my position on Romans 5:

"We were all physically present in Adam, so that we all sinned in his act" (Erickson, Christian Theology).

Do you not understand how that position addresses the verses?

appealing to authority

 

[JAL]

appealing to authority

It certainly wasn't an exclusive appeal to authority. I do not claim, "I believe this only because Erickson said it".

I'm charging you with a logical contradiction that can ONLY be resolved with a solution like mine. My PRIMARY basis, therefore, is not an appeal to authority.

 

[RickReads]

Sounds to me like you are trying to explain away the obvious truth of Ezek 18 - that a child should not suffer for the sins of his parents.

In fact that truth is so self-evident that I don't need Ezek 18 to back it up. Anything less would make for an evil, unjust God.

The problem is, everyone sinned and fell into condemnation. Jesus is the only one who ever fulfilled the requirements.

 

[JAL]

Seems I can't win here. If I mention a view that is new to you, you guys will complain, "That is too abnormal/heretical to discuss".

And then if I show that other scholars support my view - proving it is NOT abnormal - you'll complain, "You're just appealing to authority"

I can't win!

 

[JAL]

The problem is, everyone sinned and fell into condemnation. Jesus is the only one who ever fulfilled the requirements.

No the problem is, in your mind we suffered some consequences of Adam's sin. That is not consistent with a perfectly kind, loving, fair, just God.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Seems I can't win here. If I mention a view that is new to you, you guys will complain, "That is too abnormal/heretical to discuss".

And then if I show that other scholars support my view - proving it is NOT abnormal - you'll complain, "You're just appealing to authority"

I can't win!

exactly

 

[JAL]

exactly

Exactly! Which makes for intellectually dishonest debate!

 

[RickReads]

Seems I can't win here. If I mention a view that is new to you, you guys will complain, "That is too abnormal/heretical to discuss".

And then if I show that other scholars support my view - proving it is NOT abnormal - you'll complain, "You're just appealing to authority"

I can't win!

UNFORTUNATELY YOUR OPINIONS AREN`T BIBLICAL. INVENTING A NEW VIEW DOESN`T = TRUTH

 

[JAL]

UNFORTUNATELY YOUR OPINIONS AREN`T BIBLICAL. INVENTING A NEW VIEW DOESN`T = TRUTH

Unresolved logical contradictions are CERTAINLY not the truth.

 

[JAL]

For one thing, once Adam and Eve sinned, why not just start over with, say, Bob and Sally? Why visit consequences upon 100 billion innocent offspring? That cannot be reconciled with perfect kindness.

Whereas, in MY definition of Adam, it makes sense for 100 billion people to suffer - they are not innocent!

 

[RickReads]

No the problem is, in your mind we suffered some consequences of Adam's sin. That is not consistent with a perfectly kind, loving, fair, just God.

You are inventing your own god. That doesn`t work in the long run.

 

[RickReads]

For one thing, once Adam and Eve sinned, why not just start over with, say, Bob and Sally? Why visit consequences upon 100 billion innocent offspring? That cannot be reconciled with perfect kindness.

Whereas, in MY definition of Adam, it makes sense for 100 billion people to suffer - they are not innocent!

Rewriting the scriptures doesn`t work in the long run.

 

[JAL]

You are inventing your own god. That doesn`t work in the long run.

No, that's what traditional theologians did when they looked to Plato instead of Scripture to define God. That's your heritage.

 

[JAL]

Rewriting the scriptures doesn`t work in the long run.

Yet another empty, unsubstantiated statement. Ignored.